elvindeath:Newsflash, folks ... both Scalia and Thomas are generally very critical of the government attempting to expand it's powers, especially when it comes to property rights and infringing on individual freedoms. The alignment of the Justices is not surprising at all. All the same hacks expressing shock at "conservative" justices supporting the rights of the individual ought to be in total outrage at the "liberal" administration's position that they can drone strike an American citizen without warrant, search or trial.

Yep. this is what I said. He believes the government should not interfere with the property you own, like your land, wife or slaves.

AverageAmericanGuy:And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

Yeah, you really should not be throwing those stones, Mr. glass-house owner.

Scalia: installed by Reagan, worst SC judge I've seen in my lifetime.Thomas: installed by George HW Bush, complete waste of space. Worked for Monsanto corporation for years, but did not recuse himself on Monsanto-related cases.

Theaetetus:Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: But Scalia is a big private property conservative and feels government can't take or interfere with your private property like your money, land, wife or slaves.

How is that inconsistent with the opinion?

Seems to me, a big private property conservative who feels government can't interfere with your private property, like your land, wouldn't be too keen on giving the government the power to remotely sense what is going on inside your home.

You know, like how he wrote the opinion in Kyllo that ruled that using an infrared scanner on a house without a warrant was unconstitutional.

Where did I say it way inconsistent?

Maybe people are confused by you starting your post with "but" as if your sentence was contradicting something Subby said or indicating it was inconsistent with Scalia's normal behavior.

It was it was contradicting subbies surprise at the ruling. You don't think the headline sounded surprised about the his ruling?

AverageAmericanGuy:Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

freeforever:Says someone who knows nothing about the Supreme Court or the philosophies of the justices. Scalia and Thomas actually disagree quite often on issues of executive authority and federal vs. state powers.

Feel free to list all of those dissenting opinions. I'll wait right here.

jjorsett:TwoHead: vernonFL: It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.

Which is why you are either too smart or too honest to make it as a conservative judge.

I'm guessing that this would not cover cars since a car does not have surrounding property like a house does. This ruling may not even help in an apartment complex where the hallways that lead to your door are public/communal property, They could bring the dog right to your door and never be on your property. .

I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars: What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

Corvus:Profedius: I completely agree with the ruling and I am happy they came to rule as they did. Any search of a person, vehicle or private home should require the consent of the person or warrant granted only with strong evidence supporting the need for such a search. I know this hinders law enforcement, but I am will to give up a little safety in order to keep my freedom.

So no probably cause? If you here someone scream "Help me I am being kidnapped" in the back of trunk he has to get a court warrant first? I think that's a bit extreme.

You're thinking of "exigent circumstances" rather than "probable cause". Allowing warrantless searches where someone's in imminent danger or where there's imminent destruction of evidence is a different animal. Probable cause is required in all situations, including getting the warrant.

And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

1) Privacy of the home is considered more "sacred", for lack of a better term, than privacy of a car. The nature of the place to be searched is taken into account when determining whether searches are justified (they can search your backpack under circumstances that it wouldn't be ok to search your butthole, for example.)2) Cars are mobile. The potential for someone to drive away taking evidence with them gets used a lot to justify warrantless searches of cars.3) The side of a road is a public place - your porch isn't. They'd likely decide that drug dog sniffing around the outside of your car is just fine, and if the dog detects something it's probable cause for a search of the vehicle.

Lando Lincoln:AverageAmericanGuy: And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

Yeah, you really should not be throwing those stones, Mr. glass-house owner.

Scalia: installed by Reagan, worst SC judge I've seen in my lifetime.Thomas: installed by George HW Bush, complete waste of space. Worked for Monsanto corporation for years, but did not recuse himself on Monsanto-related cases.

Corvus:Theaetetus: Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: But Scalia is a big private property conservative and feels government can't take or interfere with your private property like your money, land, wife or slaves.

How is that inconsistent with the opinion?

Seems to me, a big private property conservative who feels government can't interfere with your private property, like your land, wouldn't be too keen on giving the government the power to remotely sense what is going on inside your home.

You know, like how he wrote the opinion in Kyllo that ruled that using an infrared scanner on a house without a warrant was unconstitutional.

Where did I say it way inconsistent?

Maybe people are confused by you starting your post with "but" as if your sentence was contradicting something Subby said or indicating it was inconsistent with Scalia's normal behavior.

It was it was contradicting subbies surprise at the ruling. You don't think the headline sounded surprised about the his ruling?

Oh, I think this headline sucks and Subby should be mauled by police dogs.

Phinn:I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars: What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

There was a case here in NC where the cops tried to use a drug sniffing dog as a corpse sniffing dog. The dog sat down because it didnt know what was being asked of it. That was enough for the cops to railroad the guy. He spent 17 years in prison before he was finally released after a new trial found him innocent. Misusing the dog was only one thing in the long list of piss poor police work that was done on that case

Lando Lincoln:AverageAmericanGuy: And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

Yeah, you really should not be throwing those stones, Mr. glass-house owner.

Scalia: installed by Reagan, worst SC judge I've seen in my lifetime.Thomas: installed by George HW Bush, complete waste of space. Worked for Monsanto corporation for years, but did not recuse himself on Monsanto-related cases.

I'm as conservative as they get on Fark, but don't get me started on Monsanto.

Phinn:I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars: What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

If there is some reason the cops are searching the neighborhood for high explosives because someone is planning on murdering innocent people by the thousands and they know about it I would assume a warrant would be fairly easy to attain. Also, I don't know how much use a dog would be in this situation. I can keep a can of gasoline for my lawnmower and some fertilizer for my garden in my shed. You can blow a lot of shiat up with that, but it would be totally normal to have those 2 "bomb making chemicals" within arms reach of one another in the shed. This is a good ruling that reaffirms cops need warrants for searches without hindering them in any real way.

AverageAmericanGuy:Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

Well, color me jaded, but this hardly looks like a "ruling for the little guy." My guess is that they managed to bust some CIA grow op, and are busy doing damage control in order to prevent it from turning into Iran-Contra 2.0.

Mad_Radhu:AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Phinn:I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars: What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

It as a real crime, and the guy they busted is a real criminal. The question here is one of procedure, and it's more important than the crime in question. It would still be the case if it was explosives, because the procedure is framed by our rights, and changing the procedure is what erodes rights.

AverageAmericanGuy:Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

You put them there, Brainiac. Thank you for confirming my opinion of conservatives as both stupid and dishonest and lacking personal responsibility.

Phinn:I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars: What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

Doesn't make a difference to me. Drug dog, Bomb Dog etc etc. We can play What If all day long. This is the balancing act we have as a "free and open society." People are innocent until proven guilty, they have an expectation of privacy. Walking dogs, robots, whatever up to peoples doors to make sure they aren't breaking the law isn't the type of country we should be striving to be.

AverageAmericanGuy:Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

AverageAmericanGuy:Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

shroom:AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

AverageAmericanGuy:Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.